MCCLELLAN - From the very beginning I've said I'm going to support the candidate who has the best chance of changing the way Washington works and getting things done. I will be voting for Barack Obama.

original post:
The latest Republican to abandon ship, after finally noticing that John McCain's GOP is not just out-of-touch but downright nasty, is former Minnesota governor Arne Carlson.[more ...]

Former Republican Gov. Arne Carlson endorsed Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama today, saying Obama represented the best hope for an America facing an economic crisis and criticizing Republicans for waging a mean-spirited campaign that has "been going down all these side roads."

We can thank Rep. Michele Bachmann's rant about "anti-American" legislators for Carlson's decision.

Carlson also took aim at Minnesota U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, saying that her controversial remarks of the past week, suggesting Obama may have anti-American views, had led him to endorse the Democratic nominee. ...

At one point, Carlson compared Bachmann's statements to the tactics of Joseph McCarthy, the Wisconsin senator during the 1950s who helped define an era when the patriotism of many Americans was publicly questioned.

"I don't want Minnesota to continue to be seen in the national picture as some sort of a land that has these rather strange views -- we don't," he said.

the other children/grandchildren of Republican iconoclasts who have switched to supporting Obama. Christopher Buckley (son of William F.), and Susan Eisenhower (granddaughter of Ike). I don't know if Stephanie Miller of Air America counts. Despite being the daughter of Goldwater's Veep candidate, I think she's been a Dem for a long time. I've been looking for a list online of famous Republicans who have switched sides for this election, but can't find one.

Revolt going on. I would love to see two strong parties (maybe more) in this country. It is through strong intellectual debate that we get our best ideas. The problem now is that we have a wimpy Democratic party, and a bizarre ideologically fascist Republican party

going on here imo. As many have said, notably (and eloquently) Joe Klein, Obama seems to be growing more into the leadership role that was more natural (imo) to the Clintons before so maybe that will bear more fruit throughout the party. With the ideological fall of McCain, and the rise of Palin, I see no hope of the repubs "righting" their ship at the moment.

Actually, this split in the GOP started with Goldwater who was not a Rockefeller Republican. Nixon was a transitional Republican, not a Rockefeller guy and definitely setting the stage for today's GOP. Ford was in the Rockefeller camp, and Reagan was not. The Goldwater wing of the party hit paydirt with Reagan.

Hard as it might be to believe, at one time Republicans were the party of civil rights. And the Democrats, led by southern Senators like Richard Russell, were not. The passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and Goldwater's campaign switched the parties' positions.

Oddly, in his later years, Barry Goldwater became an advocate for LGBT rights.

There will a break from the Bush policies to a new set of policies that are not well defined. I worry that Obama's support will be a mile wide but an inch deep. Such an environment decreases the chances for bold action because of the need to listen to everyone and the fear of offending some supporter. We lost the chance in this election to draw sharp philosophical differences between the parties. To the extent that issues have not been discussed seriously in this campaign, it can be claimed that a vote for Obama is simply a vote against incompetence and not a vote in favor of Obama's governing philosophy (whatever that might be).

that sharp philosophical differences have been drawn in this election, you are watching a completely different election. On issue after issue, from tax policy to health care to diplomatic engagement with other countries, Obama and McCain have taken very different positions.

If you look closely, you'll see that the differences are more a matter of details than of philosophy.

On foreign affairs, I see Obama drifting towards a "pragmatic", more internationalist position not too dissimilar from Bush I. It isn't a coincidence that he has earned Powell's support and that Lugar is mentioned prominently for a post in his cabinet. Like I said, more competence but nothing game changing.

On the economy, I am afraid he will continue the new democrat line of using the debt and the deficit as an excuse for not making the permanent investments that would bring about fundamental change. This would continue the bipartisan "consensus" line of economic thought of the last thirty years.

On all issues (FISA, death penalty, gay rights, abortion), Obama has signaled his willingness to compromise and to accomodate all sides.

I hope I am wrong but this all foretells marginal changes not fundamental breaks.

We'll see. Obama has said he would like to be a Reagan of the left. It will be interesting to see how he spends his political capital.

This is what Obama was shooting for all along. He's spent two years developing a narrative in which the enemy is precisely the sort of campaign we all knew the Republicans would run. In this narrative, 'bipartisanship' isn't about splitting the difference with the wingnuts (the prospect that made so many progressives uncomfortable); it's about peeling off enough not-completely-insane Republicans to isolate and neutralize the angry losers. The 28 percenters will never go away completely, but if a Democratic candidate can sever their link to 'mainstream' conservatives, they'll be much less of a threat.

Party, as it's called in Minnesota. Tells ya something about Arne -- and more about that wonderful state, ya, yabetcha. I wish that in my state, I could belong to a Farmer-Populist Party -- that was my dad's party, too, across a river from the lovely "land of 10,000 lakes, but who's counting?" :-)

so I put it in quotes. As if I can remember exactly how many ponds and pools of water are "lakes" in your state. That's how some of 'em look to those of us in states on GREAT Lakes that look like inland oceans.:-)

the Republicans used to be called Independent-Republican Party here in Minnesota, but they changed it in 1995. It was at about that time they started acting more like their national counterparts, as well. Now, they are about as rabid as any.

Arne was surely seen as a moderate Republican, although I never really bought that. But he wasn't particularly mean, and he wasn't a "no new taxes" type guy. He was an "old" style republican, as we refer to them here. He really was quite popular for that reputation. I am confident that there are a lot of people that see themselves as independent-republicans that will listen to this endorsement.

over the next generation starting with Obama, we can effectively destroy the Republican party as we know it. You can see the fractures in their coalition, and they are much bigger than the Dems' (right now).

...why is it a good thing that Obama is loved by die-hard conservatives? Why is it cause for celebration that Colin "My Lai," or is it Colin "Iraq Has WMDs" Powell endorses him, that Ken "Cakewalk" Adelman thinks he's swell, that Obama has unearthed the decaying corpse of Super-Reaganite Paul Volcker to join his economic team, and that his possible SCOTUS nominee, Cass Sunstein, is pro-torture and anti-choice?

Tell me again why Democrats should be happy about this. Becuz if all the Republicans, neocons, and rightwing religious whackos are going to the Obama camp, maybe Democrats should vote for McCain??

It's a good thing because it helps Obama get elected. I don't care how odious some of these folks have been. If they've seen the light and will vote D and will get their friends and fans to vote D, why would Democrats want to complain?